(Since we don't know who the leaker is in the Plame case, let's just call him "Rove".)

"Rove" is not the journalists' source. "Rove" is a high government official who abused his power in order to intimidate a whistle-blower, because he didn't like what Wilson wrote in the New York Times. "Rove" attempted to co-opt six journalists in this endeavor. Only Novak complied. The others are witness to "Rove's" criminal abuse of power.

The language in the Newspaper Guild's proposed shield law shows that in this case "Rove" is the exception to the rule:

"The proposed national shield law we are supporting would allow exceptions, including for national security and if information necessary for a criminal investigation can't be gotten any other way."

"Rove's" attempted intimidation of a whistle-blower did jeopardize national security, and the information on each separate count of revealing Plame's ID cannot be gotten any other way than by testimony from each separate witness. "Rove" is culpable each time he revealed the classified information. Each time.

"Rove" is not a source. "Rove" concocted a criminal scheme and tried to drag journalists into it . He does not qualify as a source, much less a whistle-blower. But "Rove" is not above hiding behind that nomenclature, and behind all of the journalists who buy his spin and seek to protect him.

But certainly not a whistle-blower. And any journalist with a passing familiarty of their own rights is well aware of when they may be required to burn a source -- a criminal investigation, if there is no other way to get the information and the need is pressing, per the Supreme Court's decision some 30 years ago.

Since the leak itself is a criminal investigation, forcing the journalists to burn a source in this case is simply following legal precedent.

37. I'm not sure if it is tied with the timing of Plamegate or not (is that

what you mean?). But I am concerned about Cooper's little comment that his source or something or other has given him the green light to speak. Gave him the green light? So, what should we expect? More spin and embellishments? or craftily constructed arguments to carefully convolute the truth?

That rubbed me the wrong way and I'm a little hesitant to celebrate right now. I'll wait a little longer...

in a seemingly kneejerk defense of the first amendment. I'm thinking of some "liberal" talking heads on CNN and MSNBC. They should think through what is actually taking place here, and who needs to be protected from retaliation. Certainly "Rove" doesn't need protection, he is the criminal. We need to protect the witnesses against "Rove." That would be Judy and Matt.

31. May not be the source but he did conspire to see that the identity was

released into the media.....When 2 or more people gather for a nefarious purpose in this case to see that a news story was released with a CIA agents cover being blown it is a conspiracy. Remember, Watergate, it wasn't the burglary that got Nixon it was how he conspired with others to cover-up and obstruct justice.

He presents the analysis of why Judith Miller should not be allowed to assert journalistic protection of a "confidential source" in this instance. In essence, she is just a shill for the Bush administration, and as you say, Rove was not leaking, but planting a story as political revenge.

39. Speaking of Rove,he was supposed to be on an NPR talk show,but isn't.

Which might make it seem like he has something to hide.Friday morning on her NPR show,Diane Rehm announced that Rove told her he'd be a guest on her show sometime this week.Of course,the Lawrence O'Donnell revelation on the McGlaughlin Group aired on Friday night.The Rehm show filled in the last space on this week's schedule on their webpage last night,which was today at 10 AM.I was waiting to see if it would be Rove.It's not.

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators

Important Notices: By participating on this discussion
board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules
page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the
opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent
the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.